Talk:Oxandrolone

Class I and Class II steroids

What are the differences between these classes? Are there more than just two classes of steroids? —Brim 06:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Is any of this "Abuse being one major problem most bodybuilders consider a normal dose for a novice being 20-30mg's per day when in fact 10 mg is more then enough for someone who never had used" stuff really nessasary. It's becoming quite common on the wikipedia, it pretty useless without some research and there's no evidence to support any of the statements .. lets keep it serious! --81.179.110.164 08:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Besides the obvious health risks (liver and coronary), the biggest problem with Oxandrolone (and with any anabolic steroid) is of course abuse and addiction. Addiction rate for steroids is so high that the U.S. Controlled Substances Act considers anabolic steroids a Schedule III drug therefore even possession is a felony." Since the American Medical Association, Drug Enforcement Agency, and NIFA are testified to congress that anabolic steroids are not addictive I this information is incorrect.

There are numerous unreferenced statements and statements that make this sound more like a "how-to" article. The Class 1 vs Class 2 argument is not an accepted scientific theory and should be removedSettersr (talk). —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC).

Some grammar issues

"Studies have showed" appears in this article and a few other steroid articles. Maybe my grammar is wrong, but I have always seen, read, and heard, "Studies have shown". I don't think "showed" is proper English. JasonSims1984 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced

Too much unsourced stuff here

Biological effects

In contrast with some other steroids with a methyl group in the 17-alpha position, the liver toxicity of oxandrolone is low. Studies have shown that a daily dose of 20 mg oxandrolone used in the course of 12 weeks had only a negligible impact on the increase of liver enzymes. As a DHT derivative, oxandrolone does not aromatize, and thus does not cause gynecomastia. It also does not significantly influence the body's normal testosterone production (HPTA axis) at low dosages (20 mg).

When dosages are high, the body reacts by reducing the production of luteinizing hormone after perceiving endogenous testosterone production as too high; this in turn eliminates further stimulation of Leydig cells in the testicles, causing testicular atrophy.

References

- Jytdog (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS-compliant sources

@Jytdog: There are depressingly few MEDRS-compliant sources on oxandrolone because of its spotty and largely historical pharmaceutical availability. However, I have little experience finding primarily medical sources. Does anyone have leads? I shouldn't have problems getting access, but I could use help finding things. William Llewellyn's Anabolics doesn't cite anything particularly useful. Exercisephys (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

At the very top of the beige (mustard?) box above is a section that provides the link to find reviews at pubmed - it sets you up with a preformatted search that finds reviews published in the last five years. there are plenty! if you need any that are behind a paywall you can ping me with the PMID and I can get it (most, anyway) for you... Jytdog (talk)

Further reading

@Jytdog: Is there a reason why primary sources (all clinical studies, I think) are listed in the "Further reading" section? I'm tempted to remove the entire section. I doubt that the list is meaningfully curated in any way; it's probably just a random sample of oxandrolone clinical studies. Exercisephys (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I support removing all that. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Oxandrin capitalization

@Doc James: I partially reverted your edit and re-capitalized Oxandrin because it is a trade name. Also, all sources I could find capitalize it. Exercisephys (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah thanks. Did not realize that that was also a brandname. Assumed it was a second generic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

"Low" and "medium" doses

@Doc James: I noticed that you replaced the dose ranges I added with the terms "low" and "medium". However, I don't think that these terms carry much meaning. Furthermore, I think that androgen dose ranges are fundamentally different for adolescents and adults (similar to the difference between androgen dose ranges for men and women), so I think using these terms between oxandrolone's use cases is misleading. Finally, I don't recall any indication in the journal articles of whether the doses were "low", "medium", or "high" — I just remember them sharing numbers.

I'm not trying to start an argument, though. Let me know what you think, and thanks for contributing. Exercisephys (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems like you're working off of this quote from WP:MEDMOS:

Do not include dose or titration information except when they are extensively discussed by secondary sources, necessary for the discussion in the article, or when listing equivalent doses between different pharmaceuticals.

I think that it's worth giving numbers in this case because of how different dose ranges are for children, adolescents, and adults are, and to illustrate the extent to which bodybuilding doses are supraclinical. I'm also confident that the reviews discuss dose enough to justify it. For example, every single study considered by the burn recovery review used 20 mg/day, which seems to be a widely agreed-upon amount. Exercisephys (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes we are typically hesitant to provide doses as they are tough to keep accurate and we typically consider them too details for a general encyclopedia / we do not want people treating themselves. If you consider them to be of key importance no concern with you restoring them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I strongly object to the dosing, per the policy WP:NOTHOWTO and our implementation of that in [{WP:MEDMOS]]. Am removing. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Giving dose ranges has nothing to do with a "how-to" - it illustrates the strongly differing regimens used for different diseases. Also, dosage is well-established and discussed at length in the reviews. Therefore, MEDMOS does not oppose this. Exercisephys (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This content absolutely violates policy. Dosing is always discussed in reviews and in the drug label. We do not describe it. The low/medium/higher aspects can be discussed narratively without giving the actual ranges. Do not restore this content. We can take this to some DR process but do not edit war and do not restore it until we are through discussing or dealing with a DR process. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

You are not taking the time to read and consider the policy. Look at the quote above. Oxandrolone meets two of the exceptional criteria. You are lawyering rather than helping improve the article. Leave my work alone. Exercisephys (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edit warring is inappropriate. I am too angry to deal rationally with you now so will come back later. You are completely violating everything Wikipedia is about with your behavior over this content. I suggest you reconsider what you are doing and especially your attitude with regard to "your work" which is also completely inappropriate. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

as Jytdog pointed out we do not give dosing information, please refrain from such edits, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: As the conveniently above-quoted MoS entry explains, there are exceptions. Those exceptions apply to this article, as I've described at length, but everyone is ignoring that and acting as if the MoS simply says "never give dosage information". Exercisephys (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)